One of the principles of the sustainable development of tourism is preparedness to recognize and abide by limits on the development of tourism and visitor flows.
Why it is important to identify limits
It has been widely demonstrated that where tourism is associated with negative impacts on the environment or society, this is frequently due to the volume of tourists or the extent of development exceeding the capacity of the recipient destination. It is important to identify limits to tourism development in order to assist planning and policy making, and to respect those limits through action to control what actually happens on the ground.
The concept of carrying capacity
The concept of carrying capacity in tourism has been the subject of much academic debate and discussion over many years. It usually refers to the number of tourists that a place can accommodate without detriment to the environment or host population nor any reduction in tourists’ satisfaction. Different kinds of carrying capacity have been identified, including:
• Ecological capacity: based on biological and physical factors such as ability of certain species to withstand disturbance.
• Socio-cultural capacity: determined by unacceptable impacts on the local community or limitations due to the availability of human resources. • Psychological capacity: the amount of crowding that tourists perceive as
acceptable without affecting their quality of experience. This will vary according to types of tourist and types of activity or use.
• Infrastructural capacity: such as number of bedrooms or the capacity of transport systems or water supply. This is perhaps the element that can be most readily changed in the medium to long term.
• Management capacity: the number of tourists that can be realistically managed in an area without bringing economic and administrative problems.
Kaikoura, New Zealand, provides an example of a benchmarking process for a destination against international standards within the global Green Globe 21 system (see Case Studies, p 157). In Mexico, the use of a standard set of sustainability indicators across a large number of local destinations, within the government coordinated Agenda 21for Tourism initiative, has provided the right conditions for benchmarking (see Case Studies, p 153).
5
InstrumentsA realistic approach to carrying capacity assessment
There are many critics of the concept of carrying capacity as applied to tourism. It is felt that it can be meaningless and perhaps misleading to put a precise capacity limit on the number of tourists. The different factors affecting capacities and impacts are both numerous and complex, the concepts are quite subjective, conditions change over time, and there is no clear way of arriving at a figure.
On the other hand there are many circumstances where it can be very useful, and sometimes necessary, to quantify a maximum or optimum level of usage or scale of additional development. Such numbers can be used, for example, as the basis for measures to regulate, or otherwise maintain a control on visitor flows in congested places, or to guide planning decisions about the number of accommodation units that may be acceptable in an area. Rather than reject the idea of quantification on account of the above weaknesses, a realistic approach should be adopted. This might entail: • Recognizing the inevitable subjectivity of any assessment, therefore using
relatively simple approaches to estimate some sensible limits based on the
different components of capacity identified above. Estimates can be made through close observation of sites, surveys, consultation, etc.
• Using these estimates to stimulate debate and discussion.
• Avoiding applying measures appropriate to one area to other areas that may not be comparable.
• Identifying ranges rather than precise numbers.
• Being flexible about the capacity limit and being prepared to make adjustments in the light of experience.
It should also be accepted that the overall concept of carrying capacity is important and can be the subject of valuable study to guide policies, even if a quantified capacity limit is not actually identified. Carrying capacity studies, which have looked in detail at economic, social and environmental capacity issues, have proved very useful in a number of countries (see Box 5.3), although they have sometimes not been as clearly reflected in subsequent policies and plans as might be expected.
Limits of Acceptable Change
The problems associated with quantification of carrying capacity have led to the use of alternative approaches to recognizing limits to tourism. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) concept recognizes that it is the level of undesirable impact (or change) that is the problem, rather than the quantity of activity per se, and limits should therefore be described in terms of impact. The process entails:
• Identification of impacts that should limit development or use.
• Identification of usable indicators related to these impacts (see Section 5.1.1). • Identification of a range of values associated with these indicators that are considered
to be acceptable or unacceptable (based on expert evidence, consultation, etc.). • Maintaining a monitoring process to check that performance remains within the
acceptable range.
5
Instruments The LAC approach has the advantage of being flexible and based on a real assessmentof impacts of concern. However, it may sometimes be difficult to rectify problems by making adjustments only after they have occurred.
Box 5.3: Malta’s tourism carrying capacity In Malta, a small island state with 380 000 inhabitants, tourism accounts for a very significant proportion of employment and gross national product. In the late 1990s the government recognized a danger of unplanned tourism development leading to poor quality and a spiral of degradation. It, therefore, instigated a study of tourism carrying capacity.
Comprehensive data gathering and consultation over two years involved surveys of visitors and residents, aerial surveys of beaches, and analysis of existing data on the state of the environment and the economic contribution of tourism. A study group was established, with representatives of different interests.
Possible scenarios for future development were considered: free development; planned intensive development; sustainable development; restricted up-market tourism; or no tourism. The sustainable development approach was agreed upon, maintaining significant levels of tourism but within recognized limits.
A wide range of factors were analysed to identify those most critical in
determining future rates of growth. These were found to be: a need to maintain tourism as a critical source of foreign exchange earnings; avoiding excess supply of accommodation leading to poor performance and quality; saturation in summer affecting visitor satisfaction and society’s tolerance; scarce land resources; and use of energy.
It was recognized that to establish carrying capacity a quantifiable starting point was needed. This was taken as the supply of bedstock. It was calculated that this should stay at current levels (41 000) in order to achieve viable occupancy rates, rather than the considerable expansion that was then on the table. At the same time, a set of policies was widely agreed to improve the returns from tourism within these volume limits, including increasing per capita expenditure, strengthening the off-season, and promoting resource efficiency. This had implications for selection of relevant target markets and improving the quality of the offer.
The carrying capacity assessment and the clear policy direction that resulted from it has remained the cornerstone of Malta’s tourism strategy, and is now used as justification for the application of European Structural Funds to improve the quality rather than the quantity of tourism facilities and the conservation and interpretation of the islands’ heritage.